That probably does not come as much of a surprise. According to Cisco, Ericsson and other research firms, by 2018, data usage will increase eight times the 2013 figure, or be more than 383 times the traffic in 2008.

The interesting challenge is why U.S. mobile data is so high, compared to usage levels in Europe, for example, where “prices” or “costs” appear to be lower. Classical economic thinking would suggest usage for a product with demand should grow as prices get lower, contract for that same product if prices get higher.

The T-Mobile US marketing attack provides one example. By effectively dropping prices, T-Mobile US has stimulated both usage and attracted net new customers.

But some would note an anomaly: EU consumers pay less per month than U.S. consumers for mobile wireless services, but U.S. consumers use five times more voiceminutes and twice as much data, according to the GSMA.

One possible explanation is that, measured as percentage of household income, U.S. prices actually are lower than in Europe, even though the conventional wisdom and studies tend to suggest the opposite is true.

To be sure, product and lifestyle preferences cannot be discounted, nor the relationship between speed and consumption: users on faster networks consume more data.

One might argue the U.S. simply has a more-developed application infrastructure.

Whatever the reasons for usage, European consumers pay less per month than consumers in the United States, but U.S consumers use their devices more intensely than consumers in the EU.

The other issue is unit prices--”price per bit”--which arguably is lower in the United States than in the EU, at least for some plans.

All that noted, if one argues mobile Internet access costs are higher in the United States than in Europe, while consumption is vastly higher in the United States, one is challenged to explain precisely why that should be the case.

In the end, differences in appetite might be the explanation. Higher prices might not deter consumption in the U.S. market because the product itself is in greater demand than in some other markets.

With the caveat that comparing prices between countries is not easy, GSMA in 2013 argued that U.S. mobile spending by consumers was about $69 a month, compared to a European Union average of $38 a month.

U.S. consumers use 901 voice minutes per month, more than five times the European

average of 170 minutes.

Thus, while U.S. consumers pay more per month than those in the EU, they pay less per unit of

usage.

Merrill Lynch estimates that average revenue per minute of voice usage in the U.S. is far lower than in any European country, and less than a third of the European average, for example.

So there are any number of ways to look at the cost of usage. Cost in the U.S. market might be higher, but in a market where the product is deemed to have more value.

As a percentage of household income, costs might not be higher. Or pricing policies might be shaped around usage patterns that, on a cost-pe-bit basis, are not higher in the U.S. market.

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going. Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts.

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time. How much it grows is the only real question.

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64. One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64.

Industry competitors normally pay money to track their market share versus their "real" competitors. The problem is that, in rapidly-changing and porous new markets, the legacy competitors--even when they are the most benchmarked firms--are not the strategic competitors. These days, many service providers would say that "Google" or other app providers are their key competitors, even as they continue to benchmark against others in their "narrow" markets (mobile market share, or fixed network video or internet access).

The biggest single change in the internet value chain between 2005 and 2010, for example, was the shift of revenue from telcos to Apple, Microsoft and Google. Telecom providers lost 12 percent of profit, while Apple, Microsoft and Google gained 11 percent. source: McKinsey Nevertheless, the strategic issue is diminishing relevance. The "access to the internet" and associated service provider functions simply represent less value in th…

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them. Skype and VoIP provider one example. The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples. Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “Free” is a difficult price point in most markets. But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models. At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices. source: GSMADisruption…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst, consultant and journalist for more than 35 years. He currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content.

He speaks frequently at industry events, has written one book, half a dozen major market studies and 24,000 articles. His work is noted for its examination of business model issues.

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.